2017 (11) TMI 1918 - SC - Indian Laws

Application for revocation of grant of probate - Appellant herein did not initiate any action either against her mother or against her other siblings in respect of the Will and the probate in question till the year 1996 - time limitation - HELD THAT - In the absence of any evidence on record showing prejudice because of non issuance of citation at Chikmagalur, and in the absence of any evidence-much less cogent evidence-to prove fraud and undue influence, we conclude that the Trial Court as well as the High Court is justified in concluding that there is no just cause for revocation of grant of probate Under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act - The Appellant's application for revocation of grant of probate was highly belated. The District Court as well as the High Court is correct in holding that the Appellant's application for revocation of grant of probate is hopelessly barred by limitation. As there is no provision under the Limitation Act specifying the period of limitation for an application seeking revocation of grant of probate, Article 137 of Limitation Act will apply to the case in hand. In this matter, the Appellant was a minor at the time of grant of probate. She attained majority on 09.09.1965. She got married on 27.10.1965. In our considered opinion, three years limitation as prescribed Under Article 137 runs from the date of the Appellant attaining the age of majority i.e. three years from 09.09.1965. The Appellant did not choose to initiate any proceedings till the year 25.01.1996 i.e., a good 31 years after she attained majority. No explanation worthy of acceptance has been offered by the Appellant to show as to why she did not approach the Court of law within the period of limitation. At the cost of repetition, we observe that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove that the Will was a result of fraud or undue influence. The same Will has remained un-challenged until the date of filing of application for revocation. No acceptable explanation is offered for such a huge delay of 31 years in approaching the Court for cancellation or revocation of grant of probate. The District Court as well as the High Court is justified in dismissing the application of the Appellant for revocation of grant of probate - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Citation issuance location.
2. Non-disclosure of names in probate application.
3. Allegation of fraud in obtaining probate.
4. Applicability of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
5. Limitation period for revocation of probate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Citation Issuance Location:
The appellant contended that the citation for probate should have been issued in Chikmagalur, where the immovable property was situated. However, the court found that the appellant and her family resided in Mangalore, and thus, issuing the citation in Chikmagalur would not have benefited the appellant. The court emphasized that procedural irregularities, such as the location of citation issuance, do not amount to substantial defects affecting the validity of the probate proceedings. The court cited the case of Anil Behari Ghoshe v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi, which held that the absence of citation does not necessarily render proceedings defective unless it substantially affects the regularity and correctness of the proceedings.

2. Non-disclosure of Names in Probate Application:
The appellant argued that the probate application did not disclose the names of the appellant and her siblings, and they should have been made respondents. The court found that since Mrs. Mathias was the sole beneficiary under the will, there was no need to include her minor children as parties in the probate application. The court noted that the appellant did not challenge the will's validity and had not initiated any proceedings against it for 36 years.

3. Allegation of Fraud in Obtaining Probate:
The appellant claimed that the probate was obtained fraudulently by Mrs. Mathias. However, the court found that the appellant did not provide any evidence to support the allegations of fraud. The court emphasized that allegations of fraud must be specific and proven with evidence, which the appellant failed to do. The court reiterated that general allegations are insufficient to prove fraud.

4. Applicability of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act:
Section 263 allows for the revocation of probate for "just cause," which includes defective proceedings or fraudulent procurement. The court found that the appellant failed to prove any substantial defect or fraud in the probate proceedings. The court also noted that the appellant did not lead any oral evidence before the District Judge to support her claims. The court cited the case of Mt. Sheopati Kuer v. Ramakant Dikshit, which held that the absence of citation does not constitute a substantial defect if the minor's natural guardian effectively represented their interests.

5. Limitation Period for Revocation of Probate:
The court held that the appellant's application for revocation of probate was barred by limitation. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for applications for which no specific period is provided, was applicable. The court noted that the appellant attained majority in 1965 and filed the revocation application in 1996, a delay of 31 years. The court emphasized that no acceptable explanation was provided for this delay. The court cited the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, which held that Article 137 applies to applications under any Act to a civil court.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no just cause for revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. The appellant's application was dismissed as it was barred by limitation and lacked evidence to support claims of fraud or substantial defect. The judgments of the District Court and the High Court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.